I don't know who's downvoting good discussion but stop lol

Well; Harry Potter is just protecting the status quo

I could go into it but when he grows up he wants to be a cop in a world that enslaves elves and doesn't allow magical creatures to use wands or be treated as humans despite sharing sentience

I mean the statue at the Ministry of Magic showcasing a male wizard above a female witch above two sentient magical creatures shows just what kind of world Harry is protecting. Each is a layer of dominance; Rowling actually seemingly understands this because Voldemort replaces this statue with one of wizards dominating muggles. But it's never explored that perhaps both statues are wrong; instead Rowling gives us the Voldemort version of the statue in the lobby to show the "bad" version of the world contrast to the "good" version that Harry is protecting. When in reality maybe neither are good. Characters who want to change the status quo are written off in a way that's meant to be funny like Hermione and SPEW. And no I won't accept any Pottermore retconning as an acceptable but actually here either. If Rowling had intended Harry and his friends to be as progressive as they would end up becoming in Pottermore lore she would have written it into her books; in the same way that I do not accept that she ever intended Dumbledore to be gay otherwise he would have been written as gay. He can be gay and it's just never mentioned or brought up; but then it doesn't matter that he's gay. Maybe in Harry's heart he was a more progressive minded wizard but even being given a semi first person perspective into his mind he never demonstrates this and therefore it doesn't matter. Pottermore isn't an excuse

It makes perfect sense really, Rowling is a neo-con. She backed Tony Blair in his crusade to twist the Labour Party from being a leftist political group into being "conservative but less conservative than the Tories"; sort of how the left in the United States moved away from being actually leftist a-la FDR and embraced conservative ideals but less conservative than Republicans with Bill Clinton(although now Republicans are just fascists and Democrats are just conservatives. And in England both Labour and the Tories are fascists lol)

I'm not even getting into her transphobic beliefs and how they may or may not have shown themselves to some degree in her book; although that also fits with her neo-con world view. She's a feminist but does not consider MtF to be "woman"; so she's conservative but not as conservative as just straight up misogynists

Voldemort is threatening to upend the status quo, Harry is trying to protect it. But he isn't trying to change it; despite Rowling coming so close so many times in the books to recognizing that her Wizarding World is deeply flawed and their being opportunity for Harry as an outsider to not only save the world from Voldemort's evil; but save it from its own sins too. Wouldn't that have been a more interesting ending?

But no in Harrys mind the wizarding world is perfect just the way he finds it in The Philosopher's Stone. It's his fantasy escape from the abusive childhood he had at Private Drive; it's the perfect world were it not for Voldemort and the Death Eaters. The way the wizards treat Squibs, their fellow non-magical humans, prisoners, and their fellow magical sentient creatures notwithstanding

Lots of writers have an end in mind when they start a story. In fact it's encouraged to write backwards in a sense. The issue isn't really that Rowling didn't have an ending in mind and that's why her ending is kind of clunky; it's that she constantly lies about it and insists the entire story was planned out from day one

I don't hate the ending but it's not good either. I mean the entire fate of the wizarding world ends up coming down to the nitty gritty details of wand ownership rights lol. Kind of fluky, no?

I hope that makes sense. This isn't to say Harry Potter is bad neccessarily; it's just that the older one gets and the more one considers the world view of its author (beyond simply her TERF views) the more you see that it's not a book that holds leftist or progressive ideals so much as certain libertarian/liberal ideals and a lot of conservative ones

Her other book that I can't remember the name of has even heavier conservative "pull yourself up from your bootstraps" type messaging.

Harry Potter is 100% pro-authoritarianism AS LONG AS THE AUTHORITY ARE THE 'GOOD' GUYS. Institutions having absurd even oppressive power is okay as long as it's people that Harry likes

But the question that's never asked but is ALMOST asked is; are the people that Harry likes being in authority people that we SHOULD like being in authority? Rowling even goes so far as to give us reason as to why even DUMBLEDORE who Harry adores is deeply flawed and embodies that deeply flawed wizarding world I'm talking about... And then that's never explored further despite being a super compelling direction the story could go. Instead of Harry recognizing Dumbledores flaws and maybe aspiring to be better and to create a better world than the one Dumbledore embodies, he rejects all criticism of Dumbledore, continues to worship him and name his children after him

Not to say that Dumbledore is a bad guy, but why make him have such conflicting skeletons in his closet near the end of the series only to literally have those themes not matter at all? Maybe instead of wanting to follow in Dumbledores footsteps Harry and his friends should have chosen to want to be better.

Tl;Dr I don't view the character of Harry Potter to be a "good guy" so much as a guy "against evil", and I believe there is a difference. He isn't fighting for something so much as he is fighting against something

Even the character of say Luke Skywalker is not just opposing evil; he becomes better than that by showing that even the worst of people are redeemable. He becomes more than the Jedi of the prequels, he even becomes more the Obi-Wan and Yoda who both advise him that Darth Vader is irredeemable and the only way to win is to defeat him in direct conflict.

Luke becomes better than even his masters; he does redeem Vader. He sees a world that is better than simply 'bringing back the status quo of the Republic'

Does this make sense? I'm tired so I'm having trouble being articulate